Chimeric versus Multiple Flaps for Composite Oral Cavity Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Complex head and neck defects involving composite defects can be reconstructed using chimeric flaps or multiple flaps with separate anastomoses. Limited comparisons exist between chimeric and multiple flap reconstructions. We compare outcomes between chimeric and multiple flap reconstructions in oral cavity reconstruction. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (NLM), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, including English articles reporting outcomes of oral cavity reconstruction with either chimeric flaps or multiple flaps. Data extraction included patient characteristics, flap type, and outcomes such as flap survival, partial flap loss, operating room time, hospital length of stay, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles comprising 1435 patients were included. Notably, 552 patients underwent multiple flaps, while 883 received chimeric flaps. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in flap survival between chimeric and multiple flap patients (98% vs. 99%, p = 0.198). Multiple flap patients had higher rates of operating room take-backs for anastomotic issues and longer hospital stays compared with chimeric flap patients. There were no significant differences in partial flap failure, resumption of diet and speech, need for subsequent flaps, fistula formation, or general complications. CONCLUSION: This large-scale meta-analysis demonstrates equivalent flap survival between chimeric and multiple flaps in the reconstruction of composite oral cavity defects. Both approaches appear to be safe and acceptable, with comparable outcomes in terms of diet and speech resumption, rates of fistulization, and general postoperative complications. Multiple flap patients had higher rates of operating room take-backs and longer hospital stays. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 2024.

Survey of Surgeon-reported Postoperative Protocols for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap in Breast Reconstruction.

Background: The use of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps is a well-established breast reconstruction technique. Methods: A 29-question survey was e-mailed to 3186 active American Society of Plastic Surgeons members, aiming to describe postoperative monitoring practice patterns among surgeons performing DIEP flaps. Results: From 255 responses (8%), 79% performing DIEP surgery were analyzed. Among them, 34.8% practiced for more than 20 years, 34.3% for 10-20 years, and 30.9% for less than 10 years. Initial 24-hour post-DIEP monitoring: intensive care unit (39%) and floor (36%). Flap monitoring: external Doppler (71%), tissue oximetry (41%), and implantable Doppler (32%). Postoperative analgesia: acetaminophen (74%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (69%), neuromodulators (52%), and opioids (4.4%) were administered on a scheduled basis. On postoperative day 1, 61% halt intravenous fluids, 67% allow ambulation, 70% remove Foley catheter, and 71% start diet. Most surgeons discharged patients from the hospital on postoperative day 3+. Regardless of experience, patients were commonly discharged on day 3. Half of the surgeons are in academic/nonacademic settings and discharge on/after day 3. Conclusions: This study reveals significant heterogeneity among the practice patterns of DIEP surgeons. In light of these findings, it is recommended that a task force be convened to establish standardized monitoring protocols for DIEP flaps. Such protocols have the potential to reduce both the length of hospital stays and overall care costs all while ensuring optimal pain management and vigilant flap monitoring.

Congenital Thumb-Index Web Space Deficiency.

Background: There are several congenital hand differences that cause thumb-index (TI) web space deficiency. There is a knowledge gap in the literature about the hand differences that are associated with TI web space deficiency. We aimed to identify these congenital differences and the various specific reconstructive surgical procedures that are used for these conditions. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of children treated operatively over a period of 30 years for congenital TI web space deficiency by the senior author (G.M.R.). We gathered data on demographics and associated congenital hand differences and compiled a list of all surgical procedures performed for the web space and the ipsilateral upper extremity. Results: We included 71 patients (77 hands) with 12 congenital hand differences (62 developmental and 9 spastic). The total number of upper extremity operations, (ie), anesthetics performed for these patients was 186, averaging 2.6 settings and 7.5 procedures for each patient. Cutaneous reconstructive procedures included first dorsal metacarpal artery pedicle flaps (49 patients), 4-flap Z-plasties (15), and transposition flaps (13). In addition, 16 different thumb reconstructive procedures were necessary. Ten patients required revision of their TI web space procedures for recurrence. Conclusions: The prevalence of TI web space deficiency is underappreciated. These patients often have multiple musculoskeletal anomalies of the hand and upper extremity that should be ruled out and require surgical treatment to optimize hand function. Consideration should be given to performing more than one procedure in one setting when possible.